Memorandum Order — United States v. Johnson (Dkt. 855, W.D. La.)

Summary

A memorandum order of U.S. District Judge Elizabeth E. Foote in United States v. Antoria Johnson, Criminal No. 23-0108 (17), in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, signed and filed December 23, 2025 as Document 855. It denies Johnson's pro se letter motion for early termination of probation (Record Document 840), noting that neither the Probation Office nor the U.S. Attorney's Office recommends it. The order recounts that Johnson was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, sentenced on July 11, 2024 to five years of supervised probation, and ordered to pay restitution of $40,916.00, of which she has paid $7238.28. It cites the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 5:23-cr-00108-EEF-MLH       Document 855       Filed 12/23/25    Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
                                        5976


                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
                             SHREVEPORT DIVISION


 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                               CRIMINAL NO. 23-0108 (17)

 VERSUS                                                 JUDGE ELIZABETH E. FOOTE

 ANTORIA JOHNSON                                        MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY


                                MEMORANDUM ORDER

       Before the Court is a pro se letter motion for early termination of probation filed

 by the Defendant, Antoria Johnson (“Johnson”). Record Document 840. The Court

 requested the input of the United States Probation Office and the United States Attorney’s

 Office for the Western District of Louisiana regarding Johnson’s request. Neither party

 recommends early termination of Johnson’s supervised probation at this time.

       Johnson was convicted of one count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in

 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. See Record Document 313. On July 11, 2024, she was

 sentenced to serve five years of supervised probation. See Record Document 677. In

 addition, Johnson was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $40,916.00. See id.

 To date, Johnson has paid $7238.28 towards the amount owed. She has served

 approximately 17 months of her five-year term of supervised probation.

       Johnson’s motion states that she has complied fully with all conditions of probation,

 including passing all drug screens, maintaining stable employment, attending counseling,

 completing community service, and attending all scheduled appointments with her

 probation officer. See Record Document 840. Johnson also states that she has enrolled

 in school and is actively involved in community organizations. Id. Johnson requests that

Case 5:23-cr-00108-EEF-MLH         Document 855       Filed 12/23/25    Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
                                          5977


 her term of supervised probation be terminated so that she may fully move forward with

 her life. Id.

        A district court is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), after considering the factors

 set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to “terminate a term of probation previously ordered

 and discharge the defendant at any time in the case of a misdemeanor or an infraction

 or at any time after the expiration of one year of probation in the case of a felony, if it is

 satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest

 of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c). The decision of whether to grant such a motion is a

 matter left to the sentencing court’s discretion. See United States v. Cloyd, No. 24-CR-

 0099, 2025 WL 1638164, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2025) (citing United States v. Hartley,

 34 F.4th 919, 928 (10th Cir. 2022)).

        “Courts have generally held that something more than compliance with the terms

 of probation is required to justify early termination.” United States v. Reed, No. 15-CR-

 100, 2020 WL 4530582, at *2 (E.D. La. June 6, 2020) (quoting United States v. Smith,

 No. 10-CR-53, 2014 WL 68796, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2014)). “[E]arly termination is

 discretionary and is warranted only in cases where the defendant shows changed

 circumstances, such as exceptionally good behavior.” United States v. Jones, No. 11-CR-

 21, 2013 WL 2417927, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2013) (citing United States v. Miller, 205

 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000)). A defendant’s proof of compliance with the terms and

 conditions of probation does not necessarily equate to “exceptionally good behavior”

 justifying early termination. See United States v. Hartman, No. 00-CR-228, 2013 WL

 524257, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 00-

 CR-228, 2013 WL 540490 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2013).


                                               2

Case 5:23-cr-00108-EEF-MLH       Document 855      Filed 12/23/25    Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
                                        5978


       The Court commends Johnson on the positive steps she has taken to improve

 herself and her life circumstances. However, many of these steps are required by the

 terms and conditions of her probation, which is generally insufficient to justify early

 termination.

       The Court also notes that Johnson was convicted of a serious financial crime. The

 presentence report calculated Johnson’s sentencing guideline range as 15-21 months

 imprisonment. See Record Document 583 at ¶ 142. During the sentencing hearing the

 Court declined to apply a two-point enhancement and recalculated the guideline range

 as 12-18 months. See Record Document 679. The Court departed downward by

 sentencing Johnson to a five-year term of probation based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

 factors. See id. at 2. In light of the downward departure provided to Johnson, the Court

 believes the term of probation, as imposed, is appropriate.

       Accordingly, after consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

 including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of

 the Defendant, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense,

 Johnson’s motion for early termination of supervised probation [Record Document 840]

 is hereby DENIED.

       THUS DONE AND SIGNED, this 23rd day of December, 2025.




                                                _____________________________
                                                ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE
                                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                            3

File and source

File

855.pdf

Size

139,716 bytes

SHA-256

39e9044f2e0fe83cdfbc065cd2d06189e34e2cedfd47a1bb56f0ebb9cab9a0d8

Our copy

855.pdf